There's murder in the discourse
 

Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is not our president.
Barack Obama is a socialist.
Barack Obama has nationalized 51% of the economy.
Obama's healthcare reform includes death panels.
President Obama is putting in place reeducation camps in order to brainwash children into being politically correct.
President Obama is a fascist.
Obama is the antichrist.
President Obama hates white people.

That's just President Obama. There are worse claims coming from mainstream sources on everyone from George Soros to Congressional Democrats. They alone aren't the end of it, though. Here is a page which marks every incident of right-wing violence and attempted violence, including murders, over a 6 month period between March and September of 2010. Vandalism, threats of violence, death threats, and even instances of murder are becoming more and more common. Congressional death threats rose by 300% in 2010 and that trend is projected to continue. "Patriot" groups and militias are surging in numbers, and populist anger has engulfed an entire political spectrum.

There's violence in the vitriol. We're fast approaching something terrible and it may be too late to stop it.

The discussion is this: why does such discourse exist? What is it's intended purpose? What are the possible ramifications of increasingly extremist language being married with violent and revolutionary sentiment and imagery? Is the next Tim McVeigh just around the corner? What can be done to slow or stop this?

I remember when I went home (Oregon) last time some guy in Washington state was planing to kill Sen. Maury. According to him (or at least his defense) it was due to the stuff Beck told him through he TV talking machine.

Beck's douche. I often wonder if this will continue until we have another major event like Ok. City.

The key thing to note is that even if some asshole reads between the lines and kills a bunch of people the folks who use this type of rhetoric to make money or consolidate political power will always just fall back on the "it's not my fault that crazy people take me seriously".

This type of rhetoric and climate don't create a sufficient condition for atrocities like Bosnia or Rwanda to occur, but they are a necessary condition.

"Second Amendment remedies", "Don't retreat, reload", "It really is time for Americans to take up pitchforks.", and one of the worst, "Let me just tell you what I’m thinking. I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it."

I don't understand how people can pretend like these statements aren't textbook examples of violent rhetoric. We saw Palin just yesterday walk back on using gun symbolism in relating to rival districts, making the shooting somehow about her being victimized. Why is it that this stuff isn't met with universal rebuke? Are we so entrenched that this stuff is given a pass because to admit it would be like losing the game to the other guys?

Beck's a good Mormon. I'm sure he was just having a nightmare while awake or some such nonsense.

I think the way to diffuse this is to get away from the idea that the Republican/Tea Party way is the American way and what the Democrats do isn't. The rhetoric on the right—despite whether it has a violent theme or not—is most dangerous when it seeks to paint the Democrat way and liberalism as contrary to American values, as unconstitutional, or, at worst, as treasonous.

They've been working away at this for years now. The danger in it is that if enough people start to believe it's true, certain right-wing groups may find themselves no longer comfortable with a peaceful political process lest liberalism destroy the republic.

This, despite the fact that liberalism helped build the republic and currently helps preserve it. The right is currently at work convincing people that this is no longer the case. They want people to believe that liberalism is dangerous and destructive.

That has to stop.

There's just too many people making too money spreading this BS for it to stop at this point. When people hold signs that call for violence and then claim they don't mean what they say we've probably pasted the point of return.

Its not the politicians and what they say. Its the media doing a real good job at taking things out of context and twisting it to their ends. Out of a 7 minute speech, the media has taken 1 second , 2 words and created a firestorm through their expert ability to manipulate the public. they have taken one thing from a group of things and twisted it. Gunsights out of everything else was chosen and twisted. It was not even real gunsights. Heck, I have rifles with scopes and it sure does not look like that, they actually look more like map sights but, that does not provoke emotions now does it?. Ratings, money, power, control. They used to just report events now they tell us what to think and by golly most people do just that. They think what the media wants them to think.

1 maybe 2 seconds? And out of context? Ummm-

Beck must talk really fast and your definition of context is way different then mine.

Well, Beck isn't a politician, which is what kriswest was referring to. But your point is well taken, Tully, as Beck is a part of the media system that focuses on the political environment.

However, I don't buy the argument that the media merely manipulates the message about what the Republicans are doing. First, it would have to be an elaborate orchestration of media output—a conspiracy—for this to be maintained, and the media system, as high-tech and sophisticated as it is, doesn't have the capacity to do this, and especially not over a span of years—and certainly not across political stances. You can find overwhelming evidence from both left-leaning and right-leaning media outlets—both domestic and foreign—regarding the reporting and analysis of the Republican penchant for demonizing liberalism.

This isn't just commentators or pundits. Politicians do it too. This is about making liberalism and the Democratic party un-American, unpatriotic, and unconstitutional—a threat to America.

Politician-

noun

a person who is active in party politics.

I disagree Beck is indeed a politician. If he's not "active in party politics" I'm a ballet dancer.

Okay, but he's not directly involved in forming public policy. But like I said, your point is well taken. He's definitely a part of the political environment.

---------- Post added at 09:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 AM ----------

Case in point: GOP Calling ObamaCare 'Government Takeover' of Health Care Is Biggest Lie of Year, Touts ABC's 'Nightline'; | NewsBusters.org

Here we have Republicans calling "Obamacare" (sometimes known as the PPACA) a "government takeover."

Um...wtf?

It's not even a single-payer system. There is no public option. It's everything but a government takeover. It was likely set up this way to avoid the GOP cries of a takeover.... No hope for that.

And in case you're wondering... "government takeover" is a synonym for "socialization"—read: "the Democrats are socializing health care; therefore this thing the Democrats are doing is socialism."

I'd say he's certainly involved in trying to form public policy. But the definition of politician doesn't state one must be involved in forming public policy.

I think the distinction interesting though. We can easily try to claim that it's only the media and not elected officials that are the problem. I wanted to address this to suggest that it's the elected officials too.

And I believe that many people use the word politician to imply elected officials.

I understand what your saying and the point you're attempting to make. I'm simply pointing out that a person does not have to be an elected official to be a "politician."

I believe many people use the word politician without knowing what the word means.

That's why it's always good to unpack these things when having a discussion about them. So without getting caught up on it, I guess my ultimate point is that it's not just the media commentators/pundits/faux journalists that are doing this. It's also elected officials. I wanted to make that clear.

I understand that and I think my ultimate point was people are often discussing these topics without really understanding the complete concept and, at times, the definition of the basic terms. I read your point about health care reform and I think it's spot on. People are misusing terms/words and then utilizing that to demonize other people, their actions or their ideas. Too many people get their info, right and left, spoon fed to them by sound bites shot at them by people getting paid a pile of cash to spin an agenda. And, I believe, most people have no idea just how big is that pile of cash. Olbermann, for example, signed a 4 year deal worth 30million dollars. So, and I don't know the details (these things are always wrapped up with this much now, signing bonus etc...) roughly 15 million a year. I haven't checked lately but Rush was making many times that amount years ago. My point is these people are paid a huge amount to push an agenda at their audience. They are not getting paid to report fact, tell you the truth or even be honest. In fact if they did tell their audience the absolute truth they'd likely lose ratings and money. I used to watch Keith when I saw it was on but his "Special Comment" went from being a once and while rant after a major event to a nightly tirade. I turned him on one night and as I listened I thought "fuck this guy's not really any different, or not much different, then Rush, Beck or Hannity. He's just slinging mud in the other direction. Fuck this, I'm going to go walk my dogs on the beach and watch the sunset." Since then I mostly use non-US based sites for my national and international news, BBC, CTV etc... Their take on things doesn't seem as clouded to me.

Not only do people need to tone it down they need to be better informed on, at times even on the most basic of, political terms, ideas and concepts. I bet if the average voter took an 8th grade social studies tests regarding politics they'd fail miserably. The very same people who would fail that test have no problem telling you you're not informed or you should get more informed. They'll tell you it's about conviction, speaking from the heart, sticking to principles, having common sense. Blah, blah, blah. And then go on a rant about Obama being a socialist or a fucking Nazi. Really you think Obama is like Hitler and I'm the one that needs an education? You know who was like Hitler? Hitler was like Hitler and there hasn't been anyone really like that, certainly not in US politics, since he shot himself 65 years ago. Bush wasn't like Hitler, Obama, Cheney, Pelosi... none of them are anything like Hitler and it's pretty insulting to folks who lost family members due to Hitler to compare anyone to him. People just are not that well informed which would not be a huge problem if not for the fact they’ve convinced themselves they are.

This brings me back to your point about the health care reform situation and how people have ended up calling it something it clearly is not. For some time now there’s been a real push to get back to grass roots (like every grass roots movement was brilliant, sigh) and get rid of these “career politicians.” To get common folk with common sense put in charge of things. Bush Jr. ran in 2000 as a “Washington outsider.” Hell, the man’s father was vice President for 8yrs and then President for 4, how much more “inside Washington” can you get then having your own father be the President? I know I heard him more then once talk about getting rid of “these career type politicians.” He was a state Governor for 4 or 5 yrs when he said that. If I hired an electrician and asked him how long he’d been an electrician and his answer was “5 years” I’d think he was a career electrician, wouldn’t you? We have career politicians calling for the end of having career politicians in office while their running for re-election or office. I find that just fucking ridiculous. Like calling for elite people or career politicians to be ousted from office is always a good thing. People calling for the end of having elite people running things should look up the word elite.

Blah, all this talk about people being "elites" and that being bad is basically dishonest. It's a play to the base move. It's asking “who would you rather have a beer with" all over again and tying that answer to who would you prefer to have running the country. How are those two things related? It's basically a "bait and switch." And the average "common sense" US voter keeps falling for it. Would you choose your doctor or auto mechanic based on whether you'd like to share a few laughs or beverage with them? Or would you prefer someone well trained regarding the subject in question? When they trash on the "elites" what I think they're really saying is well educated people are not to be trusted or are somehow less desirable then just "common folk, with common sense." You know people just like you and your neighbors or your friends. I like my friends and, when I lived in the US, knew almost all my neighbors and frankly I don't want most of them running the government. Most of them are fine people but, like me, do not have the knowledge base it would take to correct the situation we find ourselves in today.

The world is complicated. In same way you can no longer go out to your car, lift the hood and quickly make sense of how it works. You need to study it and understand it to make any beneficial corrections. Understanding the economy, environment, interstate commerce, foreign policy and affairs etc… takes more than common sense. It takes education. That education can come from self research or an Ivy League school. Where you obtain it isn’t rather important but having it is certainly important.

l
 

Will, in considering the case for the perceived violent speech of pundants causing individuals to potentially act out violently, shouldn't these "Minority Report" scenarios also consider the volume of death-threats regularly made against the individuals and groups you have singled out? Which liberal "voices" motivate their potential violence? ... and who must we blame, censor, and deminish the free speech of to prevent "something" from maybe happening some day in the possible future? Didn't one of the AZ shooting victims just threaten a TEA Party member by pointing to his picture and yelling "you're dead!" Who is responsible? It's obviously not his own responsibility with all the leftist hate-speech out there about the "tea-baggers" and their darn constitution. It's all become so ridiculous.

So you're simply unwilling to rebuke an on-air fantasy about strangling Michael Moore to death. That's totally acceptable to you, not as a free speech issue, as neither of us are the government, but rather as acceptable behavior.

Interesting to know.

I can't comment on the Michael Moore issue without reading a full transcript or seeing the complete episode. True or not... are you not concerned for all persons threatened with potentially violent speech... or only those cases that support (with mostly hear-say) your passioned interests? Remember that a play was written about assassinating W? If you believe that violent speech spawns real violence, then doesn't partisanship cheapen the argument?

I hope they throw the book at the Az man who made the threatening remarks. I don't care what side you're on violent, threatening hate filled speech is not acceptable.

---------- Post added at 03:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

You can't comment on the statement made by Beck? It's on his web page, the full transcript is there if you care to read it. If he posts it on his web site I'm not sure you say it's hearsay.

What context are you imagining in which fantasizing about strangling Michael Moore to death is acceptable? People have recordings of Beck's radio show when he said this all over the internet. Here is a copy:
So you're simply unwilling to rebuke an on-air fantasy about strangling Michael Moore to death? That's totally acceptable to you, not as a free speech issue, as neither of us are the government, but rather as acceptable behavior?

fair enough... I'll absolutely look at it. If he did what you say... as you say, then I'm on-board regarding Beck.

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:29 PM ----------

If you saw my reply to Tully, I said I will take a look. I'm on my cell-phone, so I'll look when I get home. If true about Beck's on-air Michael Moore fantasy I'll say "that's terrible" and "how irresponsible". Let's pretend that IS the case... "that's terrible" and "how irresponsible", says otto. And I would not approve of such speech.

Getting back to my point... I asked where do you stand on violent speech in general, or does only count when it comes from the right? They could have used a fictional president for the assassination play I mentioned, but they used the name of a sitting president. But wait.. is W dead? Is Michael Moore dead? And with his (MM) considerable means, has he made an attempt to take civil action against Beck or launch a campaign to discredit Beck? Where does all this hate come from? I don't like it either. But what makes your argument appear suspect is the obvious slant against the right when the evidence just doesn't support your one-sided view. If you're interested in solving a problem, perhaps polarizing the problem isn't the best place to start.


And one more thought.... is anger ever justified?

---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------

Oh no - not Clint Eastwood and CNN's Bill Hemmer too!

Just something I found while trying to locate a complete transcript of the Glenn Beck wants to kill Michael Moore episode from 2005. I'll keep looking.

Thank you for your honesty. I have similarly troubling statements from Palin, O'Reilly, Hannity, Bachmann, Savage, Angle, and a host of others on the right, if you're interested. That's the point of the thread. There's too much in the discourse that has nothing to do with honest opinion and everything to do with violence against people who disagree with you.
It's abhorrent no matter where it's coming from and deserving of strong rebuke. I was furious with Eric Fuller, one of the 19 shoot victims, for his outburst at the Tucson Tea Party gathering. He clearly was furious and let it out in an extremely inappropriate way. I'm glad he's subsequently apologized publicly. What happened to him was truly tragic and he's deserving of our sympathies, but his veiled threat against Tucson Tea Party leader Trent Humphries was an unacceptable response. Come to think of it, Keith Olbermann recently apologized for past comments that might have been needlessly inflammatory. I believe his quote was, “violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our democracy.” I certainly agree with that sentiment.
Was there a movie version done? I remember watching a fake documentary on the assassination of George Bush a few years ago. It was not at all what I expected. In the story, the country came together to mourn the President and to condemn the gunman, the father of a dead soldier. It wasn't a murderous fantasy like Glenn Beck above, but rather served primarily as a dramatic warning to would be assassins. In other words, it's not the same thing by a long shot. Inappropriate pun not intended.
This line is a little too convenient when it comes from the right, that somehow both sides share equal responsibility in the current climate of outrageous lies and violent rhetoric. No such balance exists in reality, and suggesting that it does exist only serves to stop a real solution which involves conservatives standing up to their bullies. There's no one on the left like Beck, Palin, Hannity, or Savage. They don't exist. The left is not neck-deep in gun culture and revolutionary language, even at the peak of the Bush administration. Liberals aren't bringing bombs or knives or whatever the equivalent of guns might be to our political get togethers.

"I'll get right to fixing things once it doesn't seem like my side enjoys the vast majority of the blame." Really?

I think that it is an important part of our democracy.

If that kind of rhetoric or language isn't allowed or frowned upon by society, then the 2nd Amendment has no teeth to it.

Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams saying, "To attain all this (universal republicanism), however, rivers of blood must yet flow, and years of desolation pass over; yet the object is worth rivers of blood, and years of desolation." - September 4, 1823

We cringe when people die. We cringe when it becomes reality. When the words turn into action and something actually changes in the world to make a new day that is different than "same shit, different day."

I say this because it is important to understand when the right time is to take up arms against your country, then the right time is to take action against an oppressor. It just isn't always the right time because then nothing happens, nothing may change, and that action may have been in vain.

This wasn't an action to start a change, it was simply a person who had their own agenda and issues. It was not the conspiracy of the right or the left. It wasn't the doings of the liberal or conservative media.

The media is it's own machine. It only manufactures what is consumed. If it is not consumed it changes it's product to something that does.

What if one member of TFP posted that he or she was fantasizing about strangling another member, going into brutal detail? Would this simply be necessary discourse, a dissidence adding to the diverse tapestry of our community? Or would it be unwelcome because it disrupts social order but serves no beneficial purpose? Wouldn't you ban such a person, or at least issue a strong warning (or rebuke, if you will)?

Yes, it would be removed because it would be no different than any trolling post.

This is not public airwaves. This is not public space. It is not the same.

This space is not a democratic space. This it not the equivalent.

All the distasteful and harmful discourse isn't limited to the right side of the aisle. To act or believe it does is simply sticking your head in the sand. Both sides really need to take a step back and see where we can meet in the middle on most issues rather than the current status quo of extremism and scare tactics.

I do not believe threatening to kill people if you do not get your way politically is an important part of any democracy.

---------- Post added at 06:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 AM ----------

I watched that Oscar show and when Eastwood first said he'd kill Moore if Moore showed up at his door I kind of chuckled. He said it, he had a small smirk on his face, I thought he was playing around. Then, if I remember correctly Moore shouted something from the audience and Eastwood stated something to the effect of "I'm not kidding." I was a little taken aback and thought is he really saying he'd kill the guy? Seemed very surreal to me. If Clint seriously believes in violent threats I do not respect him much though the "Outlaw Jose Wales" will always be one of my favorite westerns.

Also the Beck transcript you're looking for is from 2007. I'll go look for it again a little later if I get a chance. But is there some reason to put less weight on it if it was said 2, 4, 6 or even 8 years ago?

I'd say that if Will was to be truly fair, he would dig up the same kinds of threads/posts about Bush that were posted here. There were plenty of them.

Tully, I think it is important because it allows one to see clearly the intention and lunacy of the group. If they do not speak of such things and just carry them out it secrecy and conspiracy, it doesn't help people decide if it is the right course of action. It is more of the same rhetoric and political activity, this time with just violence included.

i dont think there is a "problem of violent discourse" in general except for folk on the right who are looking to shirk responsibility for their particular gun-toting cross-hair training real-american-defending homespun backwater neo-fascist speak.

in part because the gun-waving cross-hair-training thinking about mowing down your adversary language of the right has spilled into the space of continuous repetition---so it's not a matter of simple sentences taken in isolation, but rather of a dominant discourse in the american political landscape---for better or worse (to my mind, its entirely for the worse) that is repeated and repeated and so operates at the level of conditioning mechanism. not pavlovian style--something lighter, more in the range of cognitive parameter shaping when thinking about intermediate or experience-distant phenomena (an old poli-sci definition of politics is thinking about the experience-distant; conservo-rhetoric is at its more obviously narcissistic when you think about politics that way spreading questions of individual identity and gun pointing all over the world...)

that difference if discursive register is something the right collectively has to avoid addressing, so rather than take it on, they are trying lately to pretend that this is some metaphysical question about whether you like sentence a which involves some battle metaphor spoken by someone the right likes better than sentence b with very similar langauge pulled from a paperback autogiography published in 1969 written by someone the right treats as a ritualized signifier for red-baiting purposes.(*)



(*) as an extreme instance....this conservo-position would be like saying that the role of discourse in shaping the genocide in rwanda in 1994 had nothing to do with saturation radio repetition of statements about the evil tutsi and suggestions that the real rwandais were the hutu and that removing the tutsi contaminant was a good idea....instead conservative "thinking" would have to think that all statements in all registers involving anything like that structure are equivalent (crackhead thinking) and their implications a matter of how they are said by individuals (a notion that follows in principle from the refusal of the post-thatcherite right to admit that there is a society) and recieved by individuals, as if all situations are the same. this position is obviously worthless when it comes to trying to understand rwanda because it excludes the fundamental role of radio in triggering and directing the genocide. period.

i mention this example in order to talk about a situation in which similar language in a parallel media environment had very very bad outcomes indeed in order to force the recognition that access to/control of a dominant repetition-based media environment is fundamental as a communicative situation and that attempting to erase that by resorting to fake metaphysical equivalences is a fools game.

i am not comparing the poisonous political context of aridzona to rwanda. i am merely talking about an extreme example, a situation in which this kind of language in this kind of context resulted in very very very bad outcomes.

I find it interesting that when we analyze the right-wing rhetoric for its problems of violence, red-baiting, and the demonization of liberalism, the response is often: "what about the left, huh?"

Sure.

First, we're looking at the right. Why not address what the right is doing? Why look left?

Second, the left (or centre-left, I should say) doesn't tend to have this same problem.

In Hannity's interview of Palin last night, the best examples (ostensibly) that they came up with regarding the "violent left-wing rhetoric" were more than two years old and came from a pop star, a stand-up comedian, and an amateur web comic. Nothing screamed more "grasping at straws" than that part of the interview. (And, as you can imagine, it wasn't a very interesting interview. It seemed more of an advertorial than an interview. I'm not sure any new information was obtained, at least not anything that you wouldn't otherwise predicted.)

I know that the Democrats just as much as the Republicans have been known to use maps with targets, "war boards," etc., during campaigns. If that was the limit of Palin's themes, then it would be a different story. It's not.

If you can't see that the limits of Palin's (and Republicans' and Tea Partiers') discourse goes beyond the typical liberal, then I don't know what else to tell you. It's right there.

Could you possible rephrase or clarify this? I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.

---------- Post added at 07:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 AM ----------

I think we look left because it's important to look at the whole picture and understand it's not just one sided when it comes to violent, threatening speech. A man, as pointed out above, was arrested in Az. for making threats directed at the tea party.

Groups like ELF have been fire bombing businesses and research facilities they don't like for years. I think there's more groups on the right and they have national TV and radio outlets for their hate speech so you hear more about it. But the left has it's own lunatics.

I'm not saying to not ever look left. I'm simply wondering why that's the stock answer when we examine the right. It's classic tu quoque.

Also, I find that people tend to have problems with looking at the big picture. Blame it on polarization perhaps. People also tend to think in binary opposites, which makes looking at the big picture futile.

We can examine the left if you want. But can we not look at the right without people deflecting us to the left?

again, i think that to pretend that what's at issue here is some abstract pseudo-ethical problem with violence in political discourse in general is to allow the right to continue doing exactly as it's doing with its poujadiste wing....to exclude the context of utterances, to exclude the mechanisms of dissemination and the effects of mass media repetition is to render the question of consequence meaningless because you've erased the delivery system and that system is a very considerable aspect of the problem.


it's not as though there isn't a tradition of revolutionary rhetoric that's particular to the left, and were we in a situation where metaphysical considerations were of interest to the exclusion of everything else (in which case, position AND delivery system AND reception all would be excluded entirely so that conservatives in the united states can avoid questions that follow from the functioning of the media apparatus that tells them what their opinions are) maybe there's be some tisk tisk tisk that would result....but it's a meaningless exercise.

this is not an abstract situation: this is a dominant media apparatus in the united states....


btw discourse analysis generally centers on determining regularities across an ideological form---but it doesn't work to the exclusion of medium. only american conservatives who are looking to deflect questions do that.

Regardless, the way TFP is run is a reflection of how the staff, yourself included, understand the role of authority in a society or community. If violent discourse adds something important to the national conversation, by your own admission, why doesn't it add something of worth here? If I were to hypothetically include in a criticism of Glenn Beck a mention of how I want to strangle him... what's been added? Now, apply your answer to the same behavior on this forum. What if I threatened Ace (something that would never happen outside of a purely hypothetical exercise like this one, of course), by mentioning how I wanted to strangle him? Now apply the answer from the first question to the second. What's so different? Are you going to try and fall back on the "we don't allow trolling, but America does" thing?

While dissenting opinions are of paramount importance in a free society or community, threats of violence are not dissent.

---------- Post added at 10:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------

I'm still happy to not only compare the Bush administration to the Nazis, but unlike the Tea Partiers I can explain in great detail why I think so, and I never compared them in scale. It's a persuasive argument, if memory serves, not a poster with a mustache so subtly drawn on Bush's face without any further explanation. I never, ever, ever included violent speech in discussing him or his ilk, though. Frustrated, disappointed, and even angry as I was, I had no wish to see Bush, Cheney, Rummy, or any of them harmed. At most, I wanted an investigation, trial, and sentencing. Even the most radical voices on TFP never included anything like that. If such statements were used, they would have been at least met with gentle rebuke.

---------- Post added at 11:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 AM ----------

So you're saying the rhetoric could be acting as some kind of light classical conditioning? I have to admit, I never really thought of it in that way before. Would you mind elaborating on this idea a bit?

Tully, groups should speak their minds and intentions. No one likes when someone gets voted into office and then does things that were not spoken about or are out of character for the platform.

The Westboro Church if they rise to some sort of viable political platform can and should continue to speak in the manner they have been. Why should they stop or change their tune unless they really have.

This also means that if Taliban or other group rise to some sort of political recognition, they too should have their same discourse. It should not be limited in the manner of that "it has no part."

The same should be for any Hamas organization that gains some sort of political traction here.

Again, TFP is not a public space. That individual like another who was crazy and bent on some of the staff here was free to vocalize their hate and discontent in their own space that they paid for. TFP is as public as any privately held space is. We reserve the right to remove people as we see fit, with no reason or explanation required.

No Will, that's not what I meant and you know that. For 8 years the Bush bashers called for his head on a platter, some making the same violent overtures that have been bandied about since Obama has taken office.

I'm talking about what you find acceptable in rhetoric, without the context of public vs. private spaces. You find that calling for violence is inappropriate when you're in a position of authority, but when someone else is in a position of authority, you conveniently abandon that position. It's a classic do as I say, not as I do.

I know you're trying to mask a free speech argument, though you're not quite coming out and saying it, but that's problematic because the Supreme Court has affirmed that threats of violence are outside of the purview of the First Amendment.
You say that people called for Bush's head on a platter, but they didn't do it literally. They didn't call for his assassination, implicitly or explicitly. They didn't call for violence against him. They didn't fantasize about murdering prominent conservatives. They didn't call for "Second Amendment remedies", or anything even close to it. You're playing the false equivalence game right along with Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and you're doing it poorly. Maybe consider your position when you find yourself shoulder to shoulder with Palin and Beck on an issue. It's simply untrue. All of these attempts to shift the blame evenly are about as subtle as a flying mallet.

Call them on their violent rhetoric or admit that you enable them.

No they haven't Will. They have said, DIRECT threats are, but indirect stated puffered threats are fine. I have also no distinguished between any position of authority. I have stated that it's all fine and good because it's within the scope of understanding the position and platform of the group. I don't subscribe to them and that it does not require I decry their position. I just don't have to listen or pay attention to them. I don't need to bother myself or waste any energy on them at all.

Will, I don't let people shit in my living room. They are free to do it wherever someone else allows them to.

I don't enable them. I don't control the airwaves. In fact, I don't even consume the media that you're talking about.

Of course you enable them. You're hardly alone in enabling them, but the collective tacit acceptance is what allows them to keep their pulpits. They're not just in place because of the super far-right that fetishizes them, they're in place because people who are slightly more reasonable choose not to call them on their inappropriate behavior, instead making weak excuses for them. Like false equivalence.

I might, MIGHT be inclined to think you were being honest about this if you hadn't brought up the false equivalence thing. Your argument about threats of violence being a part of understanding someone's position better certainly isn't compelling, but it's something that I can buy you really do believe. The problem is that you put it right next to a totally false argument like saying the left is just as guilty as the right when it comes to this sort of discourse, which you know not to be true. That makes the whole thing suspect. To put it more plainly, I don't buy that you believe your arguments on this. I think, like many from center right to far right, you're fishing for an argument that deflects or otherwise prevents you from having to be honest with yourself and everyone about this.

Why is there a consistent call of "I don't believe you believe what you wrote" happening on this forum? I can see questioning a public figure, I find I "don't believe they believe" much of what they say. But why would anyone waste their time posting opinions on a tiny web site like this that they don't even believe makes no sense to me.

This is a discussion in which individuals are making arguments intended to compel.

Will, I'm not fishing for any argument. I'm speaking my mind and that's it. People are free to make their statements and actions. We are free to determine if we agree or disagree with them. We are also free to ignore them. Get that Will, because I don't denounce a group does not mean I enable them, it means I've marginalized them to mean nothing to me.

Finally we are free to act upon what we believe to be right or wrong. We can also decide not to act. That by itself is a choice and an action.

It makes as much sense as you not paying any mind to whatever is going on in some corner of the world and pinning it on you and saying,"That because you don't say anything about it you're enabling them and you are responsible for them." No sir, that guilt does not belong to me, and I tell that messenger who puts that at my feet, to fuck off. I'm not responsible for it at all.

You're the one fishing for an argument. I've stated what I had to and wanted to say. You disagree. That's it. Plain and simple.

On the other hand, you'd like to hang something onto me for whatever reasons your panties are wadded up. I really don't care.

I see that the left called for Bush and Cheney's demise during the 8 years they were in office. It wasn't much different when Regan or Bush Sr. was in office either. I can't imagine it being any less going back in presidential history. If it wasn't the left it was OTHER people and no one denounced that they should not be talking about such things. No, it was people like you who didn't say anything and enabled them. I guess that makes you responsible too. See what I did there?

Some people act on their impulses, and that's where the difference is here. You'd like it to be stopped at the talking/thinking stage, and I like it to stay at the acting upon stage.

You believe people on here are so compelled to compel they are willing to lie about what they actually believe? Sounds goofy to me. Ace tells me he believes and likes Palin for X, Y and Z then I believe that's why he likes her. Just as I believe you believe the opinions you post.

will--repetition is basic to the analyses of fascism that look to the role of radio as an ideological mechanism that assured regular turnover/adaptation of Official Attitudes and a running co-ordination between audience and state (in addition creating/reinforcing the sense of immediate identification with the nation-in-motion expressed through the real volk who ran the state)....it's not new the idea that repetition is a powerful conditioning tool. check out pascal's wager sometime.

now i'm curious about this, tho--apart from the considerable literature on the role of radio in the rwanda genocide (sobering stuff to read about if you haven't)---i'll poke around for stuff on repetition and conditioning in the communications database i run for my day gig....

are you suggesting trolling?

These aren't always mutually exclusive.
What specifically is standing between you and denouncing them, though? Is it just the comment you made about how this discourse allows you the opportunity to better understand their desperation? Can't you do that while condemning them? I get what you were saying with that argument, but I don't see it as somehow preventing you from being clear that you don't agree with these people. That was really all I wanted clarification on.

So you don't agree with Rush or Beck or Savage when they go on tirades including violent rhetoric? I'm not asking you to tell them to stop talking or whatever, just about condemnation.
We on the left weren't calling for the demise of Bush and Cheney, we were calling for them to be prosecuted for breaking actual laws. That's not the same as what's coming from the right's more radical and noisy voices. Second Amendment remidies was a reference to the Second Amendment's original intention, armed revolution against a tyrannical government. As messed up as things may be, we're not living under a tyrannical government, so using such language is calling for violent revolution against a democratically elected, relatively moderate government. Who on the left did that? Did Michael Moore or Bernie Sanders call on progressives and liberals to take up arms against the Bush Administration, even during its darkest hours? Of course not. We on the left can get just as pissed as people on the right, I redly admit, but violent rhetoric doesn't find a home among progressive ideology the same as it does conservative, seemingly.
It's not intentional. I don't think these are all just long-term trolling or anything like that.
I was curious more to your take on the psychology of this phenomenon. I think I understand in basic terms the modus operandi of the repeated line (lie) in the media becoming truth, or at least acceptable, but your mention of respondent conditioning has me very curious about that angle of whatever one calls this phenomena.
No. Trolling is intentional by nature, and it serves no purpose but to stir up shit. If I'm right, I don't think what you're doing is intentional or just here to stir shit up. You're sharing your take, I just think your bias might be keeping you from reaching a conclusion closer to my own, particularly because of your equivalence argument.

No will, you are trying to force me to agree with you and I don't.

I don't have to denounce what they are saying because I don't even acknowledge that they are saying it. Don't you get that? To me those individuals don't exist in my world of information. Why am I going to denounce something that I'm getting 3rd or 4th hand? Why am I going to waste my time on something and someone I don't care about at all?

Will, no matter how much you try, I don't care about those individuals. They don't make it onto my TV schedule, let alone my reading schedule. I don't subscribe to these individuals so why is it again that it is important for me to take an action?

Why is it my responsibility again? Why is it that every time something happens in the world and someone brings it to my attention I must act and do something? Why can I not choose to decide for myself that I cannot be bothered or that I prefer to worry or concern myself with a different cause or even no cause?

Again, this is the question: Why is it that I have to change my behavior because you don't like something that I don't care about?

Force you? Stop being so melodramatic. You can't force someone to do something with persuasive arguments.
You don't acknowledge who is saying what? Oh, that's right, you're aware they're saying it regardless of whether or not you're willing to "acknowledge" it or not. Reality is there whether you like it or not. Notice that you're not saying you don't care with this statement, but that you refuse to admit they exist. This is bizarre language.

Why did you even bother to post in this thread and engage in this discussion if you're so very above all of this, if it's outside even of the world you acknowledge?
Your first post in this thread is about how you think this rhetoric is important to our democracy. Since then, you've backed way off this statement, even going so far as to not even acknowledge that this rhetoric even exists to you. Which is it? Do you have an opinion or don't you? And if you do, do you understand that you can be held responsible for that opinion?

---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 PM ----------

6/10/10: Glenn Beck calls on his listeners to shoot "radicals in Washington"

Will, I don't know what you're drinking but it must be some good shit because you are totally making shit up.

Will, the ability for people to make their statements and claims is an important tent pole for democracy. If you don't see that that's your issue not mine.

I've not backed down from anything. You want me to admit to something that I don't believe in. I don't need to decry anything because I already don't subscribe to their position nor their media or the consumption of their media. Why is that so hard to believe?

I think that they should be able to say what they have been as long as it's within the legal limits (not yelling fire in a crowded theater and not directly threatening someone with violence.) You think that everyone should denounce it and that's fine. I'm more of a live and let live person. Those people can and will continue to create media sensationalism, I don't subscribe to their positions nor do I consume their media. I don't agree with anything they say nor do I agree with it, because I don't really know what it is that they are saying. I think that they should be free to say it since they have the airwaves and their group has paid for it in some fashion.

I don't watch Glen Beck, I don't listen to Rush. I read things for myself and not really need them interpreted and predigested for me. I won't watch your little clip from youtube either because I don't care to watch him.

Why do I need to denounce their opinion? Why do I need to denounce anything that they say? The converse of this is if you'd agree with their position you'd be asking me for an affirmation for something that I cannot affirm either.

No. I flat out disagree with that.

If we had a new party come into power that was like Hamas and called for the destruction of Israel and Jews, I really don't care. I don't need to denounce them. I don't even need to acknowledge them. It's not much different than that. I get to find out that anyone who associates with a group I can decide to find out about someone's associations and then decide at that time if I agree or disagree with them. I get to do it on my terms not yours, not some other media pundit.

I get to put my energy into supporting something that I do care about. I don't care to waste my energy on things that I don't care about nor find that I have to use my energy against something. Why is that so difficult for the Willravel brain to understand?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." We have two distinct problems here. One, a definition of evil that is common, and two, who are the good men? Political thought is not diametric, we are on a continuum that suprisingly meets at both ends, totalitarianism. I would err on the side of liberalism of expression (certainly not political liberalism as it is defined in our age. That is my own opinion. Ignore it if you want to.) This thread has been rather inconclusive concerning the role of rhetoric as being the casus belli of mentally disturbed people acting out horrific fantasy. To claim that this current state of affairs is somehow different than all of our history as both humans and Americans is a painful demonstration of the ignorance of that writer. We want what we want for whatever motivation we possess. To give our preferences a moral equivilancy is to deny that ground to someone else. We need a higher standard and in our case it is the Constitution, which allows for change if the people desire it. Will, you are making no case, Cynthetiq, you are willfully ignoring evil. The evil is not liberalism or conservatism, violent speech or cuddly kittycats, it is ignorance. THIS IS MY HUMBLE OPINION. User mileage may vary. The Constitution allows for a degree of violent rhetoric because the government should always be aware that it can be replaced. I would prefer the violence of an epically placed vote, but Jefferson did allow for the concept of applied violence for the greater good. Thus the founding of our country. This wack-job in Arizona chose the one, violence, when the other, voting, was a perfectly available and legitimate choice. It is foolish to think that either side of the political spectrum is not frothing at the mouth at the thought of forcing their vision of the ideal state on the rest of us. Will, you would ask us to accept that in willful ignorance, all facts to the contrary. Cynthetiq, you would ask us, perhaps, not to care either way if it isn't in the purvue of our personal reality. Others exist and thus redefine reality in the common arena. This is the game of human interaction and governance. It is a war and we want our side to win; that is the naked truth. We hold a special disdain for those who do not cotton to our views. The goal should be to understand the nature of the game, not to stiffle the conversation with what turns out to be inane self-importance. And yes, I think Olberman is an utter and complete self-involved, bombastic sanctimonious asshole licking jerkwad. SO I DON'T WATCH HIS SHOW!! Again, no violence is necessary as long as the vote exists, however squelching speech is just for one side to gain acendancy over the other. To deny that fact is to be a liar and that is the greatest threat to our democracy. I agree with Cynthetiq that this forum is not a democracy and that compulsive speech is not fact and can be willfully ignored. Will Cynthetiq suffer from a possible lack of information otherwise ignored? Possibly. Is it my, or your, problem, Will? Not really. Just keep trying to win your political war and I will continue to try to win mine. In the meantime we need to identify and treat the mentally imbalanced, as could have happened with this guy, who didn't even listen to talk radio but was however interacted with by police that very day and who gave off warning signals to classmates and teachers for some time.

So Cynthetiq is ignoring evil when he chooses to opt out of viewing the news but when you decide someone's "self-involved, bombastic sanctimonious asshole licking jerkwad" it's completely acceptable to opt out?

My hyperbole was meant to illustrate a point, that being personal choice and liability for the choice. I wish Olberman well. Unlike others, I see the political war for what it is and do not wish the participants harm or censure. You failed to notice I did not define the evil as anything other than ignorance. I did not say that people should not choose that evil, if they even buy the definition. For some in is inapplicable or irrelevant. I listen, on occasion, to Olberman, Maddow, the view, Matthews, and other left leaning views. I go to daily kos. I like to know what the enemy is up to, so to speak. But I fully support people making the choice to not listen to anything they don't want to listen to. They will suffer for their ignorance as a matter of course; mine is not to dictate the terms of their life. I have three points. One, say what you want and be embraced or ignored, knowing it is the full and free right of others to do so. Two, rhetoric is not sufficient cause for violence; there is an inclination in the personal philosophy and thought of the violent to act. Case in point is this guy from Tucson. He didn't listen to the rhetoric of the right. He acted on his own for his own goals, horrible as they were. My third point is that we should exercise the rights of democracy in all forms of liberty: say what you will and pay the price. Prefer truth over fallacy that is created to coerce and not inform, and by all means vote!! That is the way we put teeth into our arguments. It is all choice and personal responsibility for that choice. I can say whatever I want, but I will face banination, or critical review, such as your reply. Banination does not deny my right to voice my thoughts, it is the agreed to price to pay for airing my thoughts. Your critical reply inspires reflection and possible change in my philosophy. That is how it works. I do not want to live in an echo chamber where only my thoughts are reinforced. But I must have some core belief to traffic in the intellectual arena of discourse. Somewhere there is informed balance. A more perfect union looks very different to all involved.

Palin endures scorn by some and love by others simply because she is a symbol. Her symbolism is what causes fear on one hand and admiration on the other. Everyone says stupid shit, as I did describing Olberman. Palin is harmless because we have the choice to hear her, evaluate her speech and then ignore her. Olberman is harmless because I have the choice to do the same with him. You can read my post and ignore me. I am not harmed by it, and neither are you unless you simply dismiss it out of hand because I do not "look" like you do, philosophically and politically. We must learn and then stand. Standing cannot occur without either learning or assuming. We assume too much as a society. The cart is before the horse, and the goal is to tear down the straw man instead of elevating the real man. Those are my observations, anyhow.

It does happen sometimes... a TFP super moderator flat-out lied on another related thread about some of my posts. In one of his standard "all evil conservatives" tirades, he said that I (and all conservatives... of which I'm not) simply make "shit" up. I asked him to back up his claim... what have I made up? Instead I get two rambling rants attempting to rationalize why he really didn't lie when he used lies describing how others were lying. It was pathetic... and yes, people (at least one here) are quite willing to knowingly lie to make their point.

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- otto: you are extremely close to pushing a hot button - flaming the staff and the site. You're making this discussion about TFP and the honesty of the staff. You can stop by realizing that staff are members first and staff members second and that their statements - unless they're in colored script like this - hold no more weight in a thread than any other member's. So mentioning a staffer by position here is only designed to bring shame to the rest of the staff - I will not, under any set of circumstances you can imagine - allow you to do that. Either debate the topic at hand or bring your accusations (and accompanying evidence) of staff malfesance to me.

Thank you jazz... noted... and my sincere apologies to the TFP staff. You do a great job and it was not my intent to implicate the staff in any way. I will remember to refer my complaints off-line through the appropriate channels.

More hate speech from the right... whoops, make that a hard-left!

The following video was taken at a recent anti-Koch brothers protest in Palm Spring, CA. Observe the “peaceful” leftist protesters calling for the torture and death of Clarence Thomas, plus one woman challenging Glenn Beck to a duel with her “Glock.”

You’ll also hear one person calling for revolution and another saying Thomas (who’s black) should be sent “back to the fields”:



Oh those wacky peace:love:lovin' lefties!

When will the "left" take responsibility for their language of racism, hatred, and violence?

I had a friend at the Koch protest! He said it went really well.

As for the accusations, they're a bit hollow, Otto. People on the left commonly utilize our most powerful weapon, irony steeped in dry whit, against people we disagree with. It's why Jon Stewart is one of our greatest champions. Because we commonly use sarcasm and irony, it's not safe to take everything we say literally. It seems clear from the video, these people are being ironic. Liberals freed the slaves. Liberals, mostly, are for gun control. You see how what they say sounds like what you hear from the Tea Party? That's irony!

Wait... so because I'm conservative it means I don't have wit, sarcasm, or irony? I can't seem to express it where someone takes it out of context? I'd say the same broad statement that "it's not safe to take everything we say literally."

Liberals freed the slaves? Hmmm... Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

do I believe a political entertainment medium would use the quite fanciful concept of murder to sell their wares? duh, yes.

murder is big money, dog.

in countries full of pantywaists, that is :p

Otto...we know for a fact that the video was produced AND edited by a guy named Christain Harsock, who claims to be a conservative "journalist (sic) and was involved in videos at ACORN offices.

And apparently was the one egging the responses on with leading questions.

Was the video highly editing (like the ACORN videos) for the purposes of misrepresenting what occurred? Were the worst remarks made by the protesters or outsiders (only heard on the video)? I dont know...do you?

Just another perspective on the event.

Republicans in Lincoln's time WERE the liberal party in America, while the Democrats were the conservatives

I was suggesting that when you hear violent rhetoric from Tea Partiers, odds are it's not sarcasm. You're a moderate fiscal conservative, which means you're very much different from a Tea Partier.
Lincoln was a liberal Republican, something impossible after Reagan, but perfectly common in the 1800s.

I can only imagine the harping that would occur regarding Lincoln's job-killing emancipation proclamation.

Thank you for this laugh, Will.

It's isn't impossible. I know may liberal Republicans. Maybe impossible for them to take a public office, but not impossible that they exist.

Can you name one? I'm honestly drawing a blank. The most progressive Republican I can think of is Governor Schwarzan.... Governor Shwartze.... the Governator, and he refused to increase taxes (even though we really, really need it), he believed in big borrowing, he refused to back Prop 8, one of the civil rights issues of our time, he was tough on immigration, etc. etc. He's a hard fiscal conservative and a moderate conservative socially. Are there Republicans clamoring for universal healthcare I'm not aware of? Or Republicans pushing for amnesty for immigrants? Or Republicans pushing to raise taxes, especially on the rich?

maybe you missed reading this....

I guess it doesn't really matter to the discussion at hand.

Regarding Otto's video, what I think we're seeing is pure and simple irony because I've done the same thing myself. Imagine if, during a political debate about the Tea Party, I used the phrase "don't tread on me". Would you think I was honestly using that phrase, or would you think I was making fun of the Tea Party? I ask this because the people who showed up to protest the Koch brothers at that meeting down south are people very much like myself, people who are not okay with the Koch brothers influencing the science debate in the media and bankrolling the astroturf Tea Party. Do you think people who fundamentally oppose the Tea Party would, without any humor or irony, talk about making a black man go work the fields? What is the most likely explanation for that, unabashed racism or making fun? I believe it's making fun.

Will-

Just so I understand. So, when we hear liberals saying disrespectful, disgusting, condescending, perhaps violent things, the rule is that we MUST give them the benefit of the doubt that what they are saying is really some form of irony...and that that irony is playing off of the "very real, non-ironic" things that conservatives say.

Got it. I will adjust my rule book accordingly to include this new one. Thanks.

I applaud Ken Vogel, the reporter from Political covering the protest, who when asked by the right wing pseudo journalist behind the video, why he didn't mention the 'lynching' stuff, said "because I didn't instigate them to say those things..."

Otto and Cimarron....do you think the conservative video-guy (purporting to be an independent journalist) who started it all, had any role or responsibility to bear on the responses that you suggest are as bad as anything heard from the right?

Perhaps you do....but certainly I hope you wouldnt suggest that it is in any way comparable to the daily hate fest on conservative talk radio/tv....Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Savage, Levin, Hewitt, etc.......

I guess the Weathermen were just joking when they set off a bomb in the Pentagon

Weather Underground (organization) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The radical left has enough actual instances of violence that discredit your line of reasoning entirely.

The Weather Underground was 40 years ago. It that really relevant to the discussion?

IF so, I would suggest something more recent. How about those anti-abortion activists bombing clinics?

---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:03 PM ----------

Just in the last 10 years:

- June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.

- July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.

- December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a “memorial lamp” for an abortion she had had there.

- September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.

- April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.

- May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

- December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altman’s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.

Anti-abortion violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes. It provides background on the so-called peaceful left.

Fine. How about the G20 riots?

Hundreds arrested after G20 protesters riot in Toronto | World news | guardian.co.uk

The G 2- protest in Toronto? I didnt know we were including Canadians.

Please provide example of anything on the left comparable to the daily hate fest spewed on conservative talk radio/tv....Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Savage, Levin, Hewitt, etc.......

These guys dont just disagree with the current administration, which is certainly appropriate...they take their rhetoric to the extreme.

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

While you're at in, perhaps you can comment on this most recent video posted by otto.

Do you think the conservative video-guy (purporting to be an independent journalist) who started it all, had any role or responsibility to bear on the responses that they suggest are as bad as anything heard from the right?

No, we're probably a great deal more guilty of the crime of condescension than anyone on the right. I myself am guilty of it more often than I'd like to admit. We've even been known to be quite disrespectful, despite our care-about-everyone philosophy. That's not the issue, though. The thread is about there being violence in the discourse, even going so far as to call for violence in so many words.

In the video above, the people are jokingly mimicking the Tea Party. Is it condescending? Yes? Is it disrespectful? I suppose so. Very rarely, if ever, will you go to a protest by progressives and run into a legitimate racist, though. I say that speaking for direct experience. The guy above was clearly making fun of the Tea Party, as they're an easy target to lampoon. What he's saying would basically contradict his reason for protesting the Koch brothers. Based on that, it seems fair to conclude that he's not being serious.

---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:19 PM ----------

In 1972, my parents were in their late teens. Let's try to keep the intellectual dishonesty to a minimum so we don't get too far off track.

Why not? Socialists, liberals, conservatives, etc exist in many countries, including Canada. Besides, you have absolute proof none of the troublemakers came from the US?

I'd think the actual instances of violence I posted trump anything these people might have said. I happen to strongly believe people have individual responsibility and accountability for their actions. If someone commits an act of violence, they go to jail. Not probation or sentence thrown out on a technicality. Jail.

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------
Looks like another example of how the left also has people who suggest violence and bigotry. I don't see the video guy coercing anybody to make the statements they did. It looks like these people were speaking freely. I didn't see any knife, gun or club in the background, did you?

---------- Post added at 10:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------

The people the Weathermen killed back in the 1970's are still dead.

Besides which, I also posted a link to the G20 riots in Toronto where 500 peaceful lefties were detained for destroying other people's property.

Since then I've found another current news story about the peaceful lefties.

Bush's Geneva Trip Canceled for Threat of Shoes - CBS News

While somewhat amusing this is also dangerous. I was at a concert that was cut short because a drummer got a concussion from a thrown shoe.

Peaceful lefties indeed.

This thread isn't about The Weathermen or their victims, it's about violence in discourse. What violent discourse is there on the left? And even if there were (Spoiler: there isn't), how would that excuse the violent rhetoric on the right? You're equivocating, and you're even failing at that.
Were all 500 of them convicted? I've been to enough protests to know that being detained at one means nothing. Beyond that rather obvious point we once again are seeing false equivalence. Real people have actually died in the past month, let alone the past few years, the murders of which can be traced to violent rhetoric. There were no murders at the G20.
You're comparing the threat of throwing shoes in protest with real, actual murder. To quote Yoda, "That is why you fail."

dogzilla, I think will has a distinct difference of violence against property which is fine, versus violence against people which is not.

for me, violence is violence, whether it is against people or property. It still destroys rather than builds.

dozzilla....i didnt really expect you to acknowledge the role of the conservative instigator in the video....I can only imagine the outrage on the right if a liberal pseudo journalist with an agenda pulled a similar cheap stunt at a Tea Party event.

Or address the issue of the hate talk on conservative radio of which there is nothing comparable on the left.

I get it...the weather underground, protests in other countries and a shoe thrower are a convenient way to dodge the issue.

Not at all. I hereby condemn the few G20 protesters that destroyed property. What they did was wrong. What they did, however, has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and doesn't hold a candle to violence against people or murder. They're different. You recognize that.
You'd sentence a tagger the same as you'd sentence a murderer? I somehow doubt that.

So throwing a molotov cocktail into a health clinic is no worse than throwing a rock through a store window?

The Weathermen had some pretty violent discourse. Stokeley Carmicahel. Van Jones. If I wanted to spend the time I have no doubt I could find more.

Frankly, I can't get to excited about what some entertainers say. I don't even watch them. Especially since the lefties dismiss similar behavior from the left. If someone commits a violent act, it's not Rush's fault. It's not Stokeley Carmichael's fault. It's that person's fault and that person should be punished.

Some number greater than zero were arrested. I don't care whether anybody was killed. I don't believe violence that doesn't kill anyone is acceptable.

So it's ok to assault someone if you don't kill them. Got it.

---------- Post added at 07:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 AM ----------

The guy asked a simple question, just as Dan Rather did or the reporters on 60 minutes with a liberal agenda do. He did not force these people to make those statements.

So now you are comparing Breitbart and his colleague's edited video to 60 Minutes?

Nice. :thumbsup:

It's an equal political statement now isn't it?

Not IMO.

One (throwing rock) is an act of petty vandalism, maybe premeditated or maybe not, with no real political message (other than perhaps "screw the capitalist") and no long term damage.....and the other (molotov cocktail) is a premeditated act of intimidation to instill fear and with the intent to destroy property to the extent that it would end a legal activity in the future.

---------- Post added at 12:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 AM ----------

You really dont see a difference between the two?

again, this ridiculous context-free stuff. and red-baiting (my favorite retro-technique).

if you want to play the game of locate the violent-seeming phrase and act as though this makes some point you could make ghandi into a prophet of violence because he talks about violence a lot and does it in a way that is critical of violence and so is not only violent but also oppresses people who like violence.

that way you don't have to take any account of or responsibility for conservative media saturation with paranoid and violent rhetoric.

and true to form, conservatives are all about avoiding having to take account of or responsibility for their media apparatus unless for some reason people inside that apparatus were to start telling conservatives that the should take account of and responsibility for their media apparatus in which case they'd be all about both and all about those things in exactly the ways they are told to be all about them just as they're all about these decontextualized fake equivalence games and one-dimensional metaphysics that amounts to nothing more than "i know you are but what am i?" as if that were an argument that grown-ups would make.

to say "the weather underground wrote some violent things" is to make among the more no-shit points ever. but you aren't getting weather underground statements repeated in the major media. anywhere. so the equivalence is stupid. stokley charmichael? are you serious? where do you imagine the stockley charmichael network to be? i mean apart from your imagination: it clearly exists there.

I rebuke all of them, and I find what they did long before I was born to be abhorrent and antithetical to their goals. Regardless, what they said has no bearing on the national discussion in 2011. That was really the point both DC and myself were trying to make. This discussion is about the United States in 2011. I can't believe that you would suggest that somehow what the Weathermen said decades ago, which was not popular on the left even when it was said, somehow informs national politics in the present.
I'm really glad you don't watch that stuff, dogzilla, I respect you for that, but a very large number of people do, and among those people are racists, xenophobes, and gun culture people. There are even emotionally unstable people who are perhaps more susceptible than your average person to the false reality that Fox News and conservative talk radio describe in which tyrannical liberals are trying to murder babies, give your job to brown people, or whatever bizarre fantasy about George Soros Beck has come up with this week.

Dr. Tiller, the abortion doctor, was shot in the head, murdered in cold blood by someone who was an avid Bill O'Reilly watcher. Bill, of course, lead a campaign against Tiller in the media, calling him a murderer, a baby-killer, someone who "destroys fetesus for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000", etc. He said, and I quote, " He's guilty of Nazi stuff," and "This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union." Please tell me you're willing to entertain the possibility that there is a connection between the exaggerated, hte-filled rhetoric of BillO and Dr. Tiller's murderer.
I don't find it acceptable either, but I hope you understand that throwing a rock through a window is not as bad as physically attacking a person or killing them. Please, dogzilla, tell me you're at least willing to admit that.
Never said it was okay.

If you're talking about petty vandalism sure, I agree with you there is a difference. Not when there is an extreme political statement being made.

Watts got better? South Central LA got better? Because of those riots against the police and "the man" was just petty vandalism???

The G20 vandalism isn't equal in your head because you don't equate the actions and grade the violence because it isn't your storefront and goods that were destroyed.

So now you bring in the Watts riots? Just another deflection.

If you dont see the difference in the intent of the acts (the intent of rock throwing is not to shut down the store), the resulting level of violence (again, rock v molotov cocktail) and the deliberate attempt at intimidation (in one and not the other) in the political messages...I guess there is nothing to more to be said.

And we can go back to the topic of discussion.....the impact or potential impact of vitriolic discourse.

Since I cant a response from anyone else...perhaps you can enlighten me.

Please provide example of anything on the left comparable to the daily hate fest spewed on conservative talk radio/tv....Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Savage, Levin, Hewitt, etc.......

---------- Post added at 05:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 PM ----------

RB expressed it better than I could.

I suppose to go "there" you would need to qualify your claim regarding "daily hate spewed". It is simply your opinion.

So with the so-called context issue some of you are whining about, I suppose bringing up a lovable fuzz-ball like Jim Jones is way out of line. It must be so unfair to mention his huge influence with the San Francisco democrats producing rent-free "rent-a-rallies" for liberal politicians and causes... gee, Jim Jones effortlessly garnered such enormous amounts of good will from Democratic politicians and activists. Harvey Milk never seemed to care how Jones could, at the snap of his fingers, direct hundreds of people to stack a public meeting or volunteer for a campaign... (hmmm... sort of like ACORN and SEIU). Milk only cared that he benefited from that control and never bothered to do anything to inhibit such a dangerous cult operating in his city. Instead, he actively aided and abetted a homicidal maniac. And it wasn't just local hacks Jones commanded respect from... he hung out with "big shots" like SF Mayor George Moscone, future first lady Rosalyn Carter, California Governor Jerry Brown, (roachboy's buddy) vice presidential candidate Walter Mondale, and many, many more. Nothin' like taking the old rules for radicals "ends justifies the means" idea to the extreme.

The guy was the democratic party's wet dream until it blew up their faces. Then the scramble to disassociate from Jones after the Jonestown massacre seems like a tactic so familiar in so many ways today (WMDs). Just imagine how inconvenient it became to have ties to one of the biggest mass murderers in modern times. His ties to the media and the Democratic party were numerous. They were happy to use him as long as it served their purposes.

FACT: On November 17, 1978, Jim Jones was a hero to American leftists.

FACT: On November 18, 1978, Jones orchestrated the killings of 918 men, women, and helpless children ...then strangely suddenly morphed in the eyes of American leftists into an evangelical Christian fanatic... this tactic also rings familiar today.

Sorry for those on the left... but he's yours and yours alone . Top that one.

I couldn't say because I don't subscribe nor consume that media either. I don't care about those extremes on either the right or the left. I'm not interested in being a media watch dog.

We've been through this, DC_Dux. While Cynth has informed and developed opinions about all of this media stuff and has repeatedly shared his opinions about this media stuff, he doesn't subscribe to or consume this kind media in any way. He just doesn't care. If you don't believe me when I say he just doesn't care about the topic at hand, please refer to his 16 posts in this thread.

First the Weather Underground...then Jim Jones

You guys sure know how to keep it relevant!

---------- Post added at 11:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 PM ----------

Its not about consuming that particular media, but raising the level of political discourse in the country.

But I get it....you dont see that as your responsibility.

dc, it's not my responsibility to watch them and criticize their behavior.

I don't think what they are doing is wrong. I can disagree with the positions they take without having to watch them if I happen to hear about their position through other channels or distributions every day. I assume you and willravel don't watch the opposing side at all, yet you have strong opinions about what they say. Why would you watch them? I assume your answer is the same as mine, but mine covers both sides.

I have been equally critical of ANSWER, MoveOn.org and others on the left...not for their policies, but when their rhetoric was excessive and far to mean-spirited. IMO, it is counter-productive.

But, if you cant acknowledge that the rhetoric in the media in recent years is far more vitriolic than anytime in our lifetime, and far more from the right than the left, then with all due respect, IMO, you have been living under a rock.

If that vitriol is ok with you, then absolutely, dont be part of any attempt to try to tone it down.

I can't speak for DC, but I watch Fox News and read Drudge because it matters to me what people who think differently than I do think. I don't watch every episode of the Factor or anything, but I do pay attention to it, and not just in the form of counter-points coming from Rachel Maddow or Daily Kos. If I walled myself off completely from sources of information other people commonly use, I run the risk of finding myself in an echo chamber.

I was thinking about this as I walked into the office today. I don't think it any more vitriolic than what I thought I was hearing in the 80s during Reagan and Bush Sr. I say thought because we didn't have the media tsunami juggernaut we have today.

I think that the vitriol is okay. It's when the speech or thought turns into action which is not okay.

will, I commend you in taking that kind of time to get your own fair and balanced. I can't be bothered any more. Life is too short and my free time too precious to give away to those things I don't agree nor subscribe to anyways.

Perhaps a few examples:
Marxists? Destroying the country? Sounds like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity....day after day.

The Health Care law is putting his life at risk...a bureaucrat will determine his health? Sounds just like what was heard on conservative talk radio for months.....death panels, government intrusion into your life. etc.....

How about the number of arson cases against mosques in the last few years....I think it is up to 4 or 5 now...during the same time that conservative talk radio makes repeated claims that most mosques in the US are funded by, or fronts for, terrorist organizations.

I can find more...and I dont have to go back to the 70s and the Weather Underground and Jim Jones.

I posted this as a stand-alone in Found on the Net, because I thought it didn't require discussion in and of itself. It's good for a laugh if you want it.

However, I felt it was relevant to this thread. It's a parody of the kind of rhetoric that Glenn Beck goes on about the Obama administration: "the Marxists in Washington," socialism sliding into communism, progressivism sliding into fascism, etc.

This is the power of parody. It takes something, turns it on its head, and throws it back at you. This action gets you to look at the issue from a perspective that you may not have otherwise. Enjoy.